New RCA Statement in the Matter of the Investigation of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler

99 Comments:

Statement in the Matter of the Investigation of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler

Apr 12, 2005 -- Statement in the Matter of the Investigation of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler by the Rabbinical Council of America

Tuesday, April 12, 2005In regard to The Rabbinical Council of America investigation and expulsion of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, the RCA determined that it would not issue any public statement beyond the formal findings of the Vaad and the Executive Committee. However, in light of a concerted campaign to mischaracterize, misrepresent, and distort both the process and its outcome, as well as to demean the eminent and distinguished rabbis who were part of the process, the RCA has elected to make the following statement:

1. The year long investigation took that extended time because the Vaad Hakavod made every effort to follow all the relevant halachic, legal, as well as moral, guidelines and laws, both as regards procedure and substance. The investigation benefited from the advice and guidance of recognized and respected experts in halachah, American law, and psychology. The findings were based on the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation, both on the telephone and in person, and both by outside investigators and members of the Vaad itself. Accordingly, we stand by both the procedural fairness of the proceedings and, equally important, the substantive result reached by us.

2. The investigation was not, and never purported to be, in the nature of a Beit Din proceeding. The RCA constitution calls for a panel of peers to review the activities of a rabbi accused of misbehavior. This is called a Beis Din Hakavod, or a Vaad Hakavod, which has always been understood as referring to an administrative process, not a Beit Din proceeding. This was made clear throughout to the accused and his counsel. As mandated by our constitution, it was an administrative proceeding of a religious organization, entitled to determine in a manner it chooses, who is and who is not fit to be a member.

3. The accused was given repeated opportunities prior to the issuance of the decision to respond to the charges as shared with him, as well as to appear in an appropriate hearing and face his accusers. However he, through his legal counsel, as well as through his wife, clearly and unambiguously turned down in writing such invitations to appear before the Vaad Hakavod. He requested instead that we rely on his written submissions, which we did, in addition to statements made by him in an interview by an independent investigator commissioned by the Vaad Hakavod. Only after the decision was communicated to him, did he offer to appear before the Vaad Hakavod.

4. Any claims or statements to the contrary, be they from rabbis in America or Israel, legal counsel, publicists, journalists, family members, or others, are based on either willful denial of fact or on ignorance resulting from one-sided representations.

Hmmmmmm First they said they would not say anything beyond the notice of expulsion. Now they are making an additional statement. Oifen ganef brent a hitl. I think the RCA is on the defensive. I think RMT put them there. Let's see if they go the distance and appear before a Beis din.

>in light of a concerted campaign >to mischaracterize, >misrepresent, and distort both >the process and its outcome, as >well as to demean the eminent >and distinguished rabbis who >were part of the process, the >RCA has elected to make the >following statement:

Did anybody actually read what the Beit Din said? It said it needed to be taken up by a Beit Din anywhere in the world or by "zablah". This agrees with what Rav Dovid and Rav Reuven paskened. The RCA is actually going against Rav Dovid and Rav Reuven. As just part of the common-folk, if the Rabbis don't give a hoot what the gedolim say does that mean we don't have gedolim anymore? Moreover, the hebrew original gives the RCA 14 days to commence the "zablah" presumably starting from April 5th meaning that if they do not, they will be in willful violation of the Beit Din's ruling. I wonder how many rabbanim (and most RCA rabbis have pulpits, I think) tell their congregants that they must abide by Beit Din rulings. How can the member Rabbis belong to an organization that rejects the Jerusalem Beit Din, rejects Rav Dovid and rejects Rav Reuven? As a mere John Doe here, I find this incomprehensible. As weak as the Batei Din have been to date, there is the potential for the entire structure to collapse if the RCA does not comply (or, I would assume, they could appeal).

The possibility that the greatest of scholars can err in strict halachah is explicit in Vayikra (4:13 see Rashi). Even in that case, an individual who is convinced that the Sanhedrin erred may not rely on their decision (Horayot 2b).

Rav Dovid and Rav Reuven are nogim badavar. They are uncles of the accused and should not be making any halachic statements on this matter. Let them support him emotionally but keep out of the halachic matters.

If they are possul to testify on his behalf they certainly shouldn't be paskening about his status.

>Doesn't anyone remember the Lanner >Beis Din and how ineffective it was >in dealing with a sexual predator?

The Lanner Beis Din was convened to investigate whether someone slandered Lanner by publicly accusing him of attempted murder. It was NOT about whether he was a sexual predator. What kind of mandate do you think a beis din has in 20th and 21st century America? Zero budget, zero subpoena power, zero threat of incarceration for purjery, and only the ability to rule on the specific matter placed before them and about which the litigants agreed to have adjudicated.

>The Lanner Beis Din was convened >to investigate whether someone >slandered Lanner by publicly >accusing him of attempted >murder. It was NOT about whether >he was a sexual predator. What >kind of mandate do you think a >beis din has in 20th and 21st >century America? Zero budget, >zero subpoena power, zero threat >of incarceration for purjery, >and only the ability to rule on >the specific matter placed >before them and about which the >litigants agreed to have >adjudicated.

Exactly, it's a tool used to protect sexual predators, not stop them. It doesn't have that power.

>As weak >as the Batei Din have been to >date, there is the potential for >the entire structure to collapse

So? People ignore the rulings of Batei Din all the time.

Has this cemetery in Queens been restored?http://web.archive.org/web/20030115112513/www.jewishinterest.com/MokomSholom/rav.htm"

What people do is one thing. What we are talking about here is when THE RABBIS ignore Beit Din. When the Rabbis (specifically the organization of Orthodox Rabbis) claim that Rav Reuven, Rav Dovid and Jerusalem Beit Din have no authority over them, the system has collapsed. Halacha no longer exists. Every man has now been given the okay withhold a get since Beit Din is irrelevent ACCORDING TO THE RABBIS. The RCA has opened a Pandora's Box.

>>Has this cemetery in Queens>>been restored?>>http://web.archive.org/web/20030>>115112513/www.jewishinterest.com>>/MokomSholom/rav.htm">>What people do is one thing. >What we are talking about here >is when THE RABBIS ignore Beit >Din.

In this case the rabbonim in Queens (Vaad Harabonim of Queens) are getting their main source of income from a man who is in breach of a psak by Rav Elyoshav to restore 11,000 Jewish graves in Queens.

>What people do is one thing. >What we are talking about here >is when THE RABBIS ignore Beit >Din.

So? How are they different from any other frum jew? Do you realize that smicha today is not REAL smicha?"

Yeah. So? They are the standard bearers. When RABBIS say Beit Din is irrelevent (specifically when the group representing Orthodox Rabbis), all Batei Din have are useless and halacha and the halachic process begins to totally break down. Why bother asking a shayla or a psak? It's irrelevent regardless and the RABBIS agree that it is irrelevent. It doesn't matter what the poskim say. It doesn't matter what the Beit Din. The group of Orthodox Rabbanim have given their heter to ignore it as long as they (or I) believe they (or I) know better. Tohu va'vohu returns. Judaism - 2005.

>>Has this cemetery in Queens>>been restored?>>http://web.archive.org/web/20030>>115112513/www.jewishinterest.com>>/MokomSholom/rav.htm">>What people do is one thing. >What we are talking about here >is when THE RABBIS ignore Beit >Din.

In this case the rabbonim in Queens (Vaad Harabonim of Queens) are getting their main source of income from a man who is in breach of a psak by Rav Elyoshav to restore 11,000 Jewish graves in Queens."

I know nothing about this case but I would say the same thing in this case. But, then again, many of the Vaad of Queens ARE members of the RCA so at least they are consistent in ignoring Batei Din and poskim assuming that you are relating the situation accurately (which I doubt given your resume).

>I know nothing about this case >but I would say the same thing >in this case. But, then again, >many of the Vaad of Queens ARE >members of the RCA so at least >they are consistent in ignoring >Batei Din and poskim assuming >that you are relating the >situation accurately (which I >doubt given your resume).

Your point? This has been a problem since we lost the Sanhedrin, were sent into galus and real smicha disappeared."

There is a huge difference between the people ignoring batei din and poskim and the Rabbonim ignoring Batei Din and poskim. Lehavdil - Clinton has oral sex and now the number of 13 and 14 year olds engaging in this activity has skyrocketed. Why? Because when the standard bearers lower the standards, it trickles down to everybody. While Batei Din are weak nowadays, there were and are efforts to strengthen them and the secular courts would cede some authority to them. Now, in one fell swoop, the heter to totally castrate the Batei Din in America has been given. The RABBIS themselves have determined that one need not listen to Beit Din or poskim. I would presume this also applies retroactively such that all decisions rendered by Batei Din are now null and void.

>The RABBIS themselves have >determined that one need not >listen to Beit Din or poskim.

As usual you show you can't read:

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/04/daas-torah.html...The possibility that the greatest of scholars can err in strict halachah is explicit in Vayikra (4:13 see Rashi). Even in that case, an individual who is convinced that the Sanhedrin erred may not rely on their decision (Horayot 2b). ...

http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/04/daas-torah.html...The possibility that the greatest of scholars can err in strict halachah is explicit in Vayikra (4:13 see Rashi). Even in that case, an individual who is convinced that the Sanhedrin erred may not rely on their decision (Horayot 2b)."

So what you are saying is that for those people who are convinced the RCA made a huge mistake, they should ignore the RCA and YOU, JWB, would agree with them fully supporting MT since THEY are convinced the RCA erred?

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that either of the Rabbis Feinstein, UNCLES of the accused, or a bais din in Jerusalem (what's that about anyway?) has authority over the RCA. The RCA has its own poskim who are among the top in the world. Why does anyone else, even Rav Elyoshiv have authority over them?

>So what you are saying is that >for those people who are >convinced the RCA made a huge >mistake, they should ignore the >RCA and YOU, JWB, would agree >with them fully supporting MT >since THEY are convinced the RCA >erred?

Good to see the Tendler spin machine is once again hard at work. If anyone is undermining the respect for B"D, rabbanim and gedolim it is Tendler & his troupe of relatives and cronies. Hasn't he done enough to errode our confidence in the Rabbinate and Torah without dragging others into the whitewash and coverup? Let's get back to the facts:1. The RCA and it's process was creddible and acceptable to him until they found him guilty. He was one of the RCA "nobody's" until they kicked him out!2. The process was done in consultation and including 1st class poskim. 3. He and his people have lied, lied and lied every step of the way- including things that are public knowledge to anyone who was in KNH for more than the last couple of years. Two quick examples- the list is endless:A. At the Sunday night meeting, he denied the payoff- it is known anyone with any knowledge of the happenings!B. He denied meeting behind closed doors with women- a bold faced lie!!! This is public knowledge!!!TENDLER & CO- STOP THE LIES, false accusations, smoke screens...ENOUGH!!!!Let's also can the hypocricy! Intimidating witnesses and then saying there is no evidence, threatening the RCA with libel suites and tehn asking why they don't say more, preaching about lashon harah- but only when said about him- otherwise spreading tons of disguisting lies about anyone who tried to tell the truth about him!!!What a disgusting phoney!!!

>So what you are saying is that >for those people who are >convinced the RCA made a huge >mistake, they should ignore the >RCA and YOU, JWB, would agree >with them fully supporting MT >since THEY are convinced the RCA >erred?

Welcome to the world of a Shabtai Tzvi cult follower.

>I stand by my comment of tohu >va'vohu.

Sounds right considering you follow a rasha."

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. JWB, what's the matter? Can't handle good, old-fashioned logic? YOU are the one who said that an individual can totally ignore a Sanhedrin if convinced that they erred, citing Horayot. You did not call that individual a rasha. But, if someone is convinced that the RCA erred then they are a rasha? There is only rasha here, JWB - look in the mirror and you will be able to identify the suspect.

>You did not call that individual >a rasha. But, if someone is >convinced that the RCA erred >then they are a rasha? There is >only rasha here, JWB - look in >the mirror and you will be able >to identify the suspect.

The difference is simple. In this case the RCA has not erred, you have in believing and following a rasha. You and I simply can't both be right.

>You did not call that individual >a rasha. But, if someone is >convinced that the RCA erred >then they are a rasha? There is >only rasha here, JWB - look in >the mirror and you will be able >to identify the suspect.

The difference is simple. In this case the RCA has not erred, you have in believing and following a rasha. You and I simply can't both be right.

I follow those against rasha RMT. You follow rasha RMT.

The Shabtai Tzvi's followers were wrong as well.

2:12 PM"

JWB - you gave me the heter to ignore the RCA if I am convinced they erred. At this point in time, barring any evidence to the contrary, I am convinced they erred. I WISH they would release evidence to convince me otherwise. Release the report with the names blacked out. Do something. But to ask me to trust them - how is that any different than RMT, Rav Dovid, Rav Reven, RMT's father, etc. asking me to trust RMT? Without evidence to my knowledge, I will not convict anybody. That is not cultist. That is sane, rational thinking. JWB - you are SO enwrapped in this you can not think rationally. Perhaps you have seen the evidence so you think differently. I have not. Given the way you present yourself in this blog, I am certainly not going to trust you without evidence.

The Tendler cult lives on. Only a Kool Aid drinking cult member, looneytunes, zombie, weirdo, pathetic Baal Tshuva, masochistic needy female could POSSIBLY not have doubts about M. Tendler's behavior with women. THAT is the real issue here, not the RCA. The Tendler weirdos and paid lawyers have yet to explain just how and why M. Tendler came to be accused by lots of women of sexually using them. EXPLAIN THAT YOU STUPID KOOL AID DRINKING ZOMBIE CULT FOLLOWERS!!!!!!!!

I know it's difficult for those of you who want to believe that Tendler is innocent and that it's a huge conspiracy on the part of all the survivors and the RCA.

The question is why would they want to accuse a man of sexually manipulating women into having sex with them?

Look at the pure number of alleged victims that came forward. Shouldn't that make you wonder if there is any truth to what is being said?

Look at the fact that Tendler is supposed to be an orthodox rabbi, why would so many women say he was touching them? To the best of my knowledge orthodox men are not supposed to even look at another woman, let alone reach out and touch her.

Why is it that it is so much easier to blame the victim, and those who are trying to protect them, then to look at the facts.

Pretend Tendler is a priest or someone you are not connected to. Look at the facts.

It's so difficult and scary to believe that someone you loved, and trusted would rape a woman. In this case several women.

Look calling people who are emotionally attached to a cult like leader bad names is not going to help at all.

Let's just say you were in a crisis, and someone did what ever they could to help you. You would feel the need to protect them in their hour of need. It's human nature. But let's just say that person who helped you out, did so in order to manipulate you down the road?

Let's say that this manipulative individual helped you, your family and friends many times. How do you deal with these facts?

It's really a tough situation to be in. It's all very similar to those who are incest survivors. Tendler was not their father, but he was their spiritual advisor. Which in some cases can feel like a parent.

If you start talking to incest survivors you will start to see a similar pattern. They know what their father did was wrong, but they still love him and want to be with him. It's very difficult to detach one's self from these sorts of situations.

The Tendler cult lives on. Only a Kool Aid drinking cult member, looneytunes, zombie, weirdo, pathetic Baal Tshuva, masochistic needy female could POSSIBLY not have doubts about M. Tendler's behavior with women. THAT is the real issue here, not the RCA. The Tendler weirdos and paid lawyers have yet to explain just how and why M. Tendler came to be accused by lots of women of sexually using them. EXPLAIN THAT YOU STUPID KOOL AID DRINKING ZOMBIE CULT FOLLOWERS!!!!!!!!"

How many women came forward and claimed that Clinton had his way with them? Paula Jones, Kathleen Wittie [sp], Gennifer Flowers, et al. Did you believe them all? Did you believe any of them? Aside from Lewinsky for whom there was hard evidence, why did half the country not believe (and still not believe) the women? Answer - no evidence and the desire to support the person they trust. As long as there is somebody trying to round up a group, you will be able to find willing volunteers. If I wanted to, I could get 10 women to claim these things about Rabbi Willig or Rabbi Blau. Putting together a group to make allegations is really very simple as long as there is somebody actively behind the scenes organizing it. That, my friend, is why you need evidence. Sad commentary about life these days but it is unfortunately true.

Yes, how do you get married Jewish women to come forward and say their rabbi made moves on them, had sex with them, took showers with them, etc. In our community, the women don't like to say things like that. Why would they make such a thing up? Why would they let themselves, as is claimed here by Tender supporters, be manipulated into making up a story like that? It makes no sense.

>JWB - you gave me the heter to >ignore the RCA if I am convinced >they erred.

1) I have given no "heter" to anyone. I merely referenced a halachic discussion on this.

2) If you follow a rasha, you will pay the consequences. You have wronged both past and future victims of RMT.

>At this point in time, barring >any evidence to the contrary, I >am convinced they erred.

Based on what? The word of rasha RMT?

>I WISH they would release >evidence to convince me >otherwise. Release the report >with the names blacked out. Do >something. But to ask me to >trust them - how is that any >different than RMT, Rav Dovid, >Rav Reven, RMT's father, etc. >asking me to trust RMT? Without >evidence to my knowledge, I will >not convict anybody.

Why don't you ask RMT to sign a waiver allowing his past lawyers to discuss the confidentiality agreement one victim signed for about $100K?

Why doesn't RMT sign a waiver allowing the alleged victim who was paid off to speak freely?

Why not ask RMT to sign a document giving permission to any alleged victims to take him to a civil court?

Oh, that's right you're not interested in the truth.

>That is not cultist. That is >sane, rational thinking.

As all the "sane" Shabtai Tzvi followers claimed.

>JWB - you are SO enwrapped in >this you can not think >rationally. Perhaps you have >seen the evidence so you think >differently.

Latter part is correct.

>I have not.

That seems to be your choice.

>Given the way you present >yourself in this blog, I am >certainly not going to trust you >without evidence.

Good, you shouldn't read this either, what would your RMT say? Enjoy the kool-aid.

He may not be drinking the kool aid. But he may be the paid lawyer so it is his job to defend Tendler. So he figures the best way to defend his client is to attack the victims, the RCA, and anyone else who dares to accept the RCA's findings.

OK! Now tell me WHO has rounded up these women and organized them to come forward and MAKE UP stories that Tendler touched them. WHO? and WHY?

And, by the way, I do believe the women who say Clinton touched them. Gennifer Flowers, Monica and the others. Most people do believe it. GET REAL YOU MORON!!!

NOW, FOR THE TENTH TIME, TELL ME WHO ORGANIZED THESE WOMEN, AND WHY. AND THEN TELL ME HOW!!!!"

First, there is no reason for rudeness. Second, many posts have referenced "Shifra and Puah". I have no desire to mention their names nor reference their website and perhaps harm their parnassa. You would have to ask them why phone calls are made to women who are in the midst of getting divorced or having marital issues, essentially a fishing expedition (and when you fish in seas filled with fish, you will for certain succeed in catching fish). You would have to ask them why the women have met to ensure that their stories match. Ask them to step forward.

12:33 told us that the lanner beit was only about slander and Not about a sexual predator. I testified at that beit din, and was directly involved with mordechai willig apologizing some fifteen years later. "Anonymous" could not be more wrong, and if he or she were a responsible person they would not make such unfounded statements. The lanner bet din WAS about lanner being a sexual predator and his inherent unfitness for a post at a shul in Teaneck as a rabbi. If you would like to know the truth,"anonymous", feel free to let me know and I can educate you offline.

After following the Tendler saga for some time now, I am convinced, that should the RCA release any evidence, that too would be refuted.

The RCA's updated statement was in response to the address of the Feinsteins. While the Feinsteins thought they would make fools of the RCA by saying its not a Bais Din, the RCA has 'one upped' them by saying, correct, and it was never supposed to be.

The Feinstein's have said that a Bais Din would need to be convened to determine quilt. The RCA agrees, but yet still makes it clear that their investigation determined there was undbecoming behavior.

The RCA's statement only reffered to "acting in conduct unbecoming a Rabbi." This is a broad statement, and does not mean that Tendler is quilty of all the charges against him.

However, it is clear that his conduct throughout leaves more questions than answers, and how someone can still respect him as their Rabbi is beyond my comprehension.

In the goyishe velt, any CEO, principal, priest, etc, were they under the cloud that RMT finds himself under now, they would be forced out immediately. Why is it that in the frum oilam this is not so. Have we not learned our lessons yet??

Sure the RCA is on the defensive, they tried to take the high ground, only to be knocked about by the spin machine. So, they have put on the velvet gloves. Watch out when the boxing gloves come out!All this talk about disregarding a bais din by the RCA is nuts. For a bais din to issue a psak, there has to be a din torah. There was NO DIN TORAH. The Isreali BD, who has no juristriction here, issue an ikkul. That's all. Sorry for all your fans of Rav Dovid, but his following is quite small. Where is the Aguda in all this??.. suprising quiet. Smart move, David Zweibel ESQ.

While I am on my soap box. As a (Former) member, I am quite disturbed to find out that my Tzedoka money, made out to the "Rabbi's Fund" was used to pay someone off. I though I was helping some poor family, that is what we were always told. Yudi and Eric, I've lost my respect for you, and I feel very sorry that you had to get dragged into this cesspool.

So, how many people are going to be at the Shabbos Hagodel Drosha this week? Anyone want to suggest some topics?

Oh, I see. These two midwives organized ten women to come forward and make up stories out of thin air that the local rabbi got sexual with them. Yes, it all makes sense now. Say...could I have some of what you are smoking? It must be pretty powerful stuff!!!!!

If anyone wants a good laugh, read the "New Hempstead News" blog. It is actually quite funny. Whoever writes it clearly has no concept of English spelling/grammar or Hebrew. The writing is so bad, it adds further support for my belief that the author is a fool.

If the bloger saw the decison of the Beis Din in Yerushalayim in Hebrew and English then he should know that an injunction was given to the representative of the toveah (MT)without the defendents notified that there was any case against them. Basically a technical maneuver that looks like much more then it is. Also note the use of the term the chief rabbinate since all the local courts are officially part of the chief rabbinate.

< The Rabbanut of Israel (via the Rabbanut Bais Din in Yerushalayim) has issued a psak halacha against the RCA and has found in favor of RMT. I read it (in Hebrew and in English) personally. >

If this is true then the Rabbanut of Israel has lost all credibility. It's obvious they are uneducated on the symptoms and ramifications of sexual assault. They have NO right making a discussion of issues they have no training in.

< The list of gedolim and organizations preparing written statements in support of RMT is long and distinguished. It will take a long time for the RCA to recover from this mess. >

If this is true then you have a list of individuals who haven't taken the time out to learn about the symptoms and ramification of sexual violence. They would publicly saying they are idiots. How can anyone with knowledge of sexual violence sign their names to any sort of statement supporting a man who is a manipulative alleged sex offender?

If these individuals wrote statements in support of Tendler, then they are fools. They have lost my respect. To bad there isn't a way we can warn others of how dangerous this group of "gedolim" and organizations are. I hope The Awareness Center puts a warning up on their page with these names and organizations as those who are ignorant and support an alleged sex offender.

I have a question -- How does one get this "gedolim" status? Is there a vote? Are they self-appointed? Or are these "gedolim" just manipulative cult leaders themselves?

There is no centralized Beit Din. No Sanhedrin. The Beit Din in Jerusalem requested by Tendler is not the authority. There is no one centralized authority. RMTs’ Family just supported him and dismissed the RCA determination of misconduct through a misrepresentation of what halacha requires because they want to defend their family name. Therefore they are dismissing the authority of the RCA. The RCA is an authority with respect to a large membership of leading Orthodox Rabbis that were willing to hear the women who were abused sexually by RMT and who were willing to take action; which KNH, his presidents did not nor the Monsey community. In fact, they maliciously slandered, intimidated and ruined women and supporters reputations. The women consider the RCA as an authority because they investigated and centralized for a large sector of the Jewish population. There were no “gedolim” involved in the case; there is no “gedolim” in our generation. There are leading Rabbonim and scholars which large sectors of the Jewish world consider an authority in Torah, scholarship, chesed, leadership, who are sometimes called Tzadikim. Different Jewish Sectors attribute differently to leading Rabbonim and what is poskim. The responsibility of this case was place on the RCA and they made their ruling. Its Tendler supporters and those they drag in from the outside having no first hand proof that on hearsay dismiss a prominent organization and a very through investigation.

“How can the member Rabbis belong to an organization that rejects the Jerusalem Beit Din, rejects Rav Dovid and rejects Rav Reuven?”

The Jerusalem Beit Din and the Feinsteins’ were not involved in the case to claim it’s not true. They have no validity or authority due to not investigating or part of the process to make a determination. They haven’t even made a determination about RMT sexual misconduct; and certainly can’t as they are not involved.

It is also not written in the Torah or Shulchon Oruch, which some quote here that every determination has to be made by a Beit Din. There are even many stories in our Torah where our Avienus' made determinations based on evidence single-handed. As in Avaham about Laben; whereas Laben was known to be the greatest liar of his generation. A Beit Din is used if applicable are authorities and if available to both parties as just. Most Beit Dins are in ept or corrupt. The issue is that a sexual crime has taken place in the lives of women which RMT committed. You need to follow through the RCAs findings and stop continuing to keep him in a position where he has the power to commit sexual abuse.

Unbelievably you are now claiming RMT hasn’t committed sexual abuse because the beit din of Jerusalem and his Family who the Tendler camp got said this determination wasn’t made by a beit din? A Beit Din was agreed upon. That is, a process to determine a Judgment elected by those who are a party of and concerned in our times and our Jewish spiritual level of Torah. In as much as any authority of our times a Beit Din is called and agreed upon by both parties and accepted by a large sector of the Jewish community so was the RCA in this case

I hate to break this news to all of you. Anyone can get a hazmonoh from a Bais Din As far of the Rav Dovid and Rav Reuven, I learned in elemantary school that Moshe and Ahron are not valid eidim together. NO ONE is above halacha. I think that is the oroblem here. RMT - whom I had tremendous respect for at one time and his uncles do not understand it. We should pray that Hakodosh Boruch Hu takes care of this problem as we are not capable of it.

"Unbelievably you are now claiming RMT hasn’t committed sexual abuse because the beit din of Jerusalem and his Family who the Tendler camp got said this determination wasn’t made by a beit din? A Beit Din was agreed upon. That is, a process to determine a Judgment elected by those who are a party of and concerned in our times and our Jewish spiritual level of Torah. In as much as any authority of our times a Beit Din is called and agreed upon by both parties and accepted by a large sector of the Jewish community so was the RCA in this case"

No, I am not claiming he did not do it. What I am saying, what the poskim are saying, what the Beit Din said is that there has to be a judicial, halachic process to determine facts and innocence or guilt. Only in totalitarian states (and the RCA apparently) do you have a process where the defendant is not permitted to question the witnesses against him/her. The RCA's latest statement confirmed MT's challenge to the process. How can you forbid the defendant to question those making challenges? The secular system supports this as does the halachic system. This is simple justice and seeking of justice. How can ANY of the witnesses be questioned via the phone? Any customer service trainer (and presumably the psychological experts would know this as well) that words make up only 7% of coomunication, voice 38% and body english comprises a full 55% of communication between parties. Either take this beit din or secular court, have a TRUE judicial process, have EVERYONE take lie detector tests, and then let's determine innocence and guilt.

It is clear to me that the RCA does not desire another Baruch Lanner. Rabbi Willig, in his mea culpa, essentially admitted a naivete on his part as to the problem of sexual abuse. What, I think, the RCA does not understand due to another naivete is the prevalence of making false claims of sexual abuse. Statistics show that between 15% and 50% of sexual abuse claims are false. The following editorial ran in the Washington Post:

False accusations of rape happen

editorial

According to the feminists, we should always believe women who make accusations of rape; women never make false charges. Yet while is certainly ways in which the legal system could be improved to allow fairer treatment for both the accuser and the accused in rape cases, blindly believing anyone who makes accusations isn't one of them.

The June 27, 1992 , "Unfounded Reports of Rape Confound Area Police Investigators" (pp. B1, B7) details several cases of false accusations of rape: "One Howard County woman needed an excuse for being late to work. Another feared she had become pregnant the first time she had sex. A third cut scratches on her thighs with a razor blade and bottle cap.

"In the past two years, those and 31 other women told police in the suburban Maryland county they had been raped, but as authorities looked into each complaint, they found no evidence to support it. In some cases, women told police they had concocted their stories; other times, police found no evidence of rape, and ruled the complaints unfounded.

"...According to the FBI, one of every 12 claims of rape filed in the United States are later deemed 'unfounded,' meaning the case was closed because the alleged victim recanted or because investigators found no evidence of a crime. The percentage of unfounded rape claims in the Washington area and in other major metropolitan areas varies widely from the FBI's national rate of 8 percent. " In Howard County, police classified one out of every four rape allegations as unfounded in 1990-91.

Feminists typically ask, Why would any women go through the arduous process of reporting a rape to the police, if their claim is unfounded?

According to the _Post_: "'Sometimes there's loneliness, a need for attention, a need to feel important,' said David Silber, a George Washington University psychologist.

"In Howard County, one of the few Washington area jurisdictions to make its investigative files readily accessible to the public, police records suggest a variety of possible reasons for unfounded claims. Some women said they wanted to exact revenge on former boyfriends, while others told police they were trying to hide sexual relationships from their parents or husbands, according to records.

"In one case, a mildly autistic 19-year-old told police she was attacked on an outdoor basketball court, saying a man with a six-inch steak knife grabbed her from behind, threw her down and raped her, according to a police report.

"She provided a detailed description of the man, including his 'lavender or pink shirt,' curly hair and blue jeans.

"But gradually her account unraveled. Investigators found no physical evidence of a sexual assault. And inconsistencies emerged in the teenager's story. Sixteen days after reporting the attack, the woman told police she had made up the story. According to the police report, she said she had feared she was pregnant as a result of her first sexual encounter. Police declined to charge the women because of her mental impairment.

"Investigators said the case was like many others, involving a young woman who apparently did no fully understand the ramifications of her allegation. Most of Howard's unfounded cases in 1990 involved women and girls under age 24.

"Several other cases involved interracial accusations, often against fictitious men.

"In May 1990, for example, a 23-year-old black woman said a white man abducted her from a supermarket parking lot in Silver Spring, raped her at gunpoint and told her, 'You black girls think you're pretty. Tell all of your black girlfriends that they're not pretty.'

"Yet she later told police she had come home during the wee hours and needed an excuse for her angry parents. She said she slashed her thigh with a razor blade and a bottle cap 'to make the rape more believable,' the police report said.

"In another case, a white teenager described in some detail how she exchanged racial epithets with nonexistent black attackers.

"In one of them, a 19-year-old Laurel woman accused her ex-boyfriend of climbing through her bedroom window and raping her. After mutual friends told police that she still regularly saw the young man behind her parent's backs and after she missed three appointments for a polygraph examination, police labeled the case unfounded.

"The woman, now 21, said in an interview that investigators 'handled it pretty good' but maintains she was raped. She said she didn't pursue the charges because the suspect, who was arrested and held overnight, was the father of her infant.

"'I didn't want him to go to jail,' she said. 'I wanted him to be able to see his son.'

"'Lt. Dan Davis responded that the investigation 'failed to produce any credible evidence that a crime was committed.'

"In 1985, Kathryn Hargis Tucci, a Laurel woman who was 19 at the time, filed a sexual assault complaint against a former boyfriend, who served 13 months in jail for the offense. Later, Tucci recanted, and was tried for filing a false report. An Anne Arundel County judge sentenced her to community service in a rape crisis center.

"Tucci said in an interview with a Washington Post reporter that several traumatic incidents preceded her false report. 'I've buried those bones a long time ago,' she said. 'I had several deaths in my family that year.' She declined to elaborate further.

"In 1990, six Howard women were arrested on charges of filing false rape reports, and one was prosecuted, a 29-year-old who said a newspaper delivery man had raped her at gunpoint. Later the woman said she had lied because she needed an excuse for having been late to work, according to police.

"A year earlier, the same woman had been charged with filing a false rape report in Anne Arundel County; in the Howard case, a judge ordered her to get psychiatric help." As noted above, there is room for improvement in the way our legal system deals with claims of rape--but giving credence to all cases of rape runs counter to the available evidence, along with the concept of innocent until proven guilty (guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT, not preponderance of evidence, the College's current standard, which can be used to convict innocent students far too easily, and is yet another reason why accusations of rape and other violent crime should be dealt with only by the New York State criminal justice system).

Yes, no normal woman would concoct a false claim of rape to exact revenge on a former boyfriend, or for any other reason. But--contrary to the contentions of man-hating women and self-loathing men--no normal man would rape a woman, either. Unfortunately, sick abnormal people exist in society, and Vassar College has its share of them...the latter is the reason we need a legal system, while the former is the reason we need presumption of innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

It could very well be that "New Hempstead News" cannot write English, but they certainly have the right idea, and every word they wrote up until now is the whole truth and nothing but the truth!Which is more than we say about the "Perverts' " kool aid club, who certainly write english very well but are a bunch of crazy lunatics!

"Re comment aboutfalse rape charges. How can you dare compare B'nos Yisroel with the rest of the population."

Huh? Most in this blog are comparing a respected Rav, gedolim and batei din to the rest of the population. Those who accept the RCA decision as just and final are accusing Rav Dovid, Rav Reuven, the beit din and, of course, MT of being unscrupulous and dishonest. Your question can easily be turned around in the other direction. You ask how can one question b'nos yisrael - how can one question b'nai Torah and gedolei hador!

GRANTS - It's a crime as old as time itself, and in this country someone commits it every two minutes.

The crime scenes are homes, schools, places of worship and workplaces. The perpetrators are caregivers, friends, community leaders and family members.

The crime is sexual assault. And this April, which is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, you can become part of the solution. This year's theme, "Speak Out Against Sexual Violence," reflects the fact that it will take building coalitions with others and the strength of our collective voices to end sexual assault. The fight to end sexual assault must expand from a core group providing services to victims to a more community-wide public arena.

The solution begins with awareness.

Sexual assault is widespread. It happens much more often than official crime statistics indicate--only one in nine cases is reported, yet it is estimated that one in three women will be victims at least once in their lifetimes. The American Medical Association has called sexual assault the "silent, violent epidemic".

Sexual assault doesn't just occur in the back alleys of big cities in the dead of night. The victims aren't always young women, and the perpetrators usually aren't strangers. A person's age, gender, race, class or lifestyle doesn't protect that person from sexual assault. And, it doesn't keep a victim from feeling betrayal, fear or anger.

The solution begins with knowledge.

Sexual assault occurs when someone forces, coerces or manipulates someone else into unwanted sexual activity. The perpetrator violates the victim's trust and feeling of safety. The motivation is rarely sex, but often the desire to exert power and control over someone else.

The sexual assault victim is not to blame. Ending sexual assault will mean shifting the focus from what the victim did (i.e., how she was dressed or where she was) to prosecuting and holding perpetrators accountable. Violent behavior must have consequences.

The solution begins with advocacy.

Sexual violence isn't just an individual problem. It immobilizes our society by bringing crime, injury and fear into our communities. We all have the responsibility to do something about it. The time has come to address this issue in a more public, community-wide manner.

Educate yourself on the issue. Believe and support victims. Speak up when you hear victim-blaming views. Support your local rape crisis center with time or money. Encourage schools, churches and community groups to allow prevention education programming. Ask your elected officials to remember the importance of victim services.

i have spoken to a few victims. The day MT told his wife he couldn't of been at someones house because it was a fast day. and michelle denied it because she said MY HUSBAND!! on Tish a Bav. " Impossible". Hey Michelle it was ZUM GEDALIAH. And I know because after your husband left the house I came over and was told he was there. and it is known this to be true.your husband is an asshole because he told women he loved them and he is a sick pervert. Be careful. Be very careful. Do the right thing for all Yidden in this Holy community and to step down. Everyone will then treat you with respect. No one is out to get you.Just do the right thing. What about the Principal of your daughters' school? She knows. Ask your Holy husband.In effect, we would ask that the family members, and the members of his Congregation review the statements of known victims, and the evidence.RMT abused women who asked him for help.Women who came to him to learn Torah.We deplore a community that refuses to ignore the Truth. Once again review the evidence and the statements of the victims you know about.

"In effect, we would ask that the family members, and the members of his Congregation review the statements of known victims, and the evidence.RMT abused women who asked him for help.Women who came to him to learn Torah.We deplore a community that refuses to ignore the Truth. Once again review the evidence and the statements of the victims you know about."

Who are the "we"? Who are YOU representing? I'd be happy to review the evidence and statements. Will you make the individuals and the evidence available? It seems like everybody involved wants to stay anonymous and not provide anything other than allegations.

As an outsider, living in California, and somewhat removed from this mess I would like to make these points:1. The RCA should protect its name and that of klal Yisrael by fully and openly publishing its evidence -protecting the names of those who claim to be wrong.2. The Feinstein, Tendler, and other relatives of RMT should not do more than express their beliefs as to RMT's honesty. They have no legal standing in either halacha or civil jurisprudence to adjudicate this matter. The claim made by some that their greatness in Torah knowledge allows them great latitude over the laws that prohibit family members to judge their own is spurious and a non-starter.3. The klal is being hurt over the infantile argument of 'my gadol is the gadol and how dare you disagree'.4. If both parties [RCA & RMT camp] do not realise the chilul Hashem that is making Torah a lauhghingstock then they nead to read theworkds of Yechezkel in chapters 38 & 39 -kipeshutah.5. and lastly, the shul must do what is right and take action that is meqadesh shem shomayim - whatever that may be!

"As an outsider, living in California, and somewhat removed from this mess I would like to make these points:1. The RCA should protect its name and that of klal Yisrael by fully and openly publishing its evidence -protecting the names of those who claim to be wrong.2. The Feinstein, Tendler, and other relatives of RMT should not do more than express their beliefs as to RMT's honesty. They have no legal standing in either halacha or civil jurisprudence to adjudicate this matter. The claim made by some that their greatness in Torah knowledge allows them great latitude over the laws that prohibit family members to judge their own is spurious and a non-starter.3. The klal is being hurt over the infantile argument of 'my gadol is the gadol and how dare you disagree'.4. If both parties [RCA & RMT camp] do not realise the chilul Hashem that is making Torah a lauhghingstock then they nead to read theworkds of Yechezkel in chapters 38 & 39 -kipeshutah.5. and lastly, the shul must do what is right and take action that is meqadesh shem shomayim - whatever that may be!"

As an insider, I completely agree as does virtually every member of the shul. The RCA must say what evidence exists. MT must be given the opportunity to defend himself. The proper place for this is in a court (whether halachic beit din or secular) so rules of evidence, etc. and standards apply. I would add lie detector tests even though they are not normally admitted in court. Then and only then can informed decisions be made. If MT's arguments do not seem credible to the court and/or the board, he should go, not look back and spend his time doing teshuva and seeking kaparah. If the arguments seem credible and the allegations lack credibility, MT should stay and many people are going to be spending a long time doing teshuva and seeking kaparah.

My expectation, however, is that the RCA will not release anything and will not go to any court vis-a-vis this. It seems that they "believe" there is something there and don't want another Lanner. The problem, I think, is they can not prove it as there is a lack of evidence. That is why the report suggested a mere 3 month suspension.

"If MT's arguments do not seem credible to the court and/or the board, he should go, not look back and spend his time doing teshuva and seeking kaparah. If the arguments seem credible and the allegations lack credibility, MT should stay and many people are going to be spending a long time doing teshuva and seeking kaparah."

If and only if MT is guilty he should do teshuva and seek kaparah - independent of proof, RCA, or courts of this or that kind. Guilt has nothing whatsoever to do with proofs or witnesses. It sometimes seems that this legalistic thinking got so far into people's essence that they are truly confused. A Beit Din does not determine guilt. Guilt is, or it is not.

“The RCA must say what evidence exists. MT must be given the opportunity to defend himself.”....”That is why the report suggested a mere 3 month suspension.”

Lie! They did not recommend a 3 month suspension. Stop saying this lie. They said he was guilty. You demand the RCA to say what evidence exists? Show a copy of this so called 3 month suspension made by the investigating team. Lie! They did not recommend a 3 month suspension. The investigators for a fact investigated, you’ll see it said he is guilty; they believe the women. They substantiated evidence through testimonies, witnesses and proof.

“The RCA must say what evidence exists. MT must be given the opportunity to defend himself.”....”That is why the report suggested a mere 3 month suspension.”

Lie! They did not recommend a 3 month suspension. Stop saying this lie. They said he was guilty. You demand the RCA to say what evidence exists? Show a copy of this so called 3 month suspension made by the investigating team. Lie! They did not recommend a 3 month suspension. The investigators for a fact investigated, you’ll see it said he is guilty; they believe the women. They substantiated evidence through testimonies, witnesses and proof."

The only lie is the one you attempt to perpetuate. The Presidium report did indeed only recommend a 3 month suspension. I doubt the RCA will allow you to see it but if you have any access, find out for yourself. Quite frankly, it sounds like you are more lying to yourself, as if your entire position will collapse, when you find out that this is the emes.

Liar. The Presidium investigators’ report did not at all recommend a 3 month suspension. And you can’t even produce the report. The RCA hasn’t allowed you to see it. You have no access acting as if you do and telling me to find out myself. I did; they told the women who were interview by Presidium that they without doubt find him guilty. The RCA would have had a discrepancy which they didn’t if the findings differ, but they did not.

Trying to intimidate me that I may “collapse”. I am not scared. We have the emes totally on our side that’s with out a doubt. Who cares that we don’t have you, we have the best, the emes and Hashem.

You lie about everything: a 3 months only suspension; the RCA didn’t follow halachic, that RMT wasn’t given a chance to defend himself and best lie of all that he wasn’t allow to face his accusers.

RCA stated: “The investigation took a year, the statement said, “because the Vaad Hakavod [ethics committee] made every effort to follow all the relevant halachic, legal as well as moral guidelines and laws both as regards procedure and substance. It said Rabbi Tendler “was given repeated opportunities prior to the issuance of the decision to respond to the charges … as well as to appear in an appropriate hearing and face his accusers. However he … clearly and unambiguously turned down in writing such invitations to appear before the Vaad Hakavod.”

"Liar. The Presidium investigators’ report did not at all recommend a 3 month suspension. And you can’t even produce the report. The RCA hasn’t allowed you to see it. You have no access acting as if you do and telling me to find out myself. I did; they told the women who were interview by Presidium that they without doubt find him guilty. The RCA would have had a discrepancy which they didn’t if the findings differ, but they did not."

Since 1990 at least 25 Catholic Bishops are known to have been formally accused of personal sexual misconduct - eight of them in 2002.. A ninth, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony, was cleared by police of allegations made by a woman with a history of mental illness. The below list of Bishops is in no particular order.

Springfield, Ill. – Bishop Daniel Ryan took early retirement in 1999 after being accused of hiring teenage boy prostitutes and having sex with priests. A lawsuit has alleged that this activity created an atmosphere of toleration for child molestation. Bishop Ryan, who remains in ministry in the Diocese of Springfield, had denied wrongdoing. A review board recently completed an investigation into the allegations and have forwarded the results to Rome where it is under review by Vatican authorities.

Lexington, Ky. – Bishop Kendrick Williams resigned, several weeks after three men accused him of abuse in the 1980s. A lawsuit alleged that he molested a 12-year-old altar boy while serving as a priest in the nearby Louisville archdiocese in 1981; fondled a high school student; and made sexual comments to a third plaintiff during a counseling session. Bishop Williams, 65, denied the allegations and said he was stepping aside for the good of his diocese and the church.

New York – Bishop James F. McCarthy resigned his positions as a church pastor and auxiliary bishop after admitting he had several affairs with women. His admissions came after the archdiocese received a letter Saturday revealing the affairs.

Milwaukee – Archbishop Rembert Weakland resigned after admitting that he tried to buy the silence of a former seminary student who accused him of sexual assault. Archbishop Weakland acknowledged an affair with the man but denied abuse. He initially said he had given the archdiocese more than enough money to cover the $450,000 secret settlement, then later acknowledged otherwise. Local and federal prosecutors have begun preliminary inquiries into the financial matter.

Ireland - Bishop Brendan Comiskey, Diocese of Ferns. He quit after a BBC documentary aired showing his role in covering up for pedophile priest Rev. Sean Fortune.

Palm Beach, Fla. – Bishop Anthony O'Connell resigned after admitting that as a Missouri seminary leader in the 1970s, he abused a student who had come to him for counselling after being abused by a priest. More ex-students have since accused the bishop, including some who received secret payments from him. He quit shortly after joining other Florida bishops in a statement condemning sexual abuse as "criminal and sinful." Bishop O'Connell's predecessor also quit after admitting abuse.

St. Petersburg, Fla. – Bishop Robert Lynch discosed that the diocese had paid his former spokesman $100,000 to settle allegations that the bishop sexually harassed him. Bishop Lynch is alleged to have made advances after Bill Urbanski joined the diocese in the late 1990s. The bishop said the matter was a misunderstanding and described the settlement as a severance package. A diocesan investigation declared the allegations unfounded. Mr. Urbanski said investigators didn't interview him.

San Diego – Bishop Robert Brom was accused of coercing a student into a sexual relationship at a seminary in Minnesota, where he once was rector and later headed the Diocese of Duluth. Church officials acknowledged multiple settlements to seminarians as a result of abuse allegations involving other members of the hierarchy and priests but deny the validity of the claims. Brom paid a confidential settlement (reported to be $85,000.00) to his accuser, who agreed to retract his claim against Brom. Brom has stated the pay out was "minimal insurance" to help his accuser of getting on with his life. The deal was reached in 1993 but didn't become public until this spring. Bishop Brom continues to deny wrongdoing and remains on the job.

Sioux Falls, S.D. – Bishop Paul Dudley, who retired in 1995, was accused of fondling an altar boy in the 1950s. He was a priest then in the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, which said that it had hired a private detective to investigate. Archdiocesan officials said that in 1999, a woman accused Bishop Dudley of abusing her in the 1970s. There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation, the officials said. Bishop Dudley faces no civil or criminal charges. He has denied wrongdoing.

U.K. - Archbishop John Aloysius Ward, Cardiff, Wales, for ordaining a man accused of assaulting a boy, among other accusations he denied. (Resigned October 2001)

Australia - Bishop Ronald Mulkearns, Bullarat. He retired amid accusations he failed to protect altar boys from a pederast priest, who pleaded guilty to 46 offenses against 20 boys and one girl. (Resigned June 1997)

Honolulu - Bishop Joseph Ferrario, Molestation charges, which he denied, were made against him. (Retired 1993)

Canada - Archbishop Alphonsus Liguori Penney, Newfoundland. Knew about sexual and physical abuse of boys at Mt. Cashel orphanage for 10 years but did nothing (20 priests and layworkers were arrested and convicted). (Resigned 1990)

Cheyenne, Wyo. – Bishop Joseph Hart, who retired in 2002, was accused in 1989 and 1992 of molesting two junior high school boys while a Missouri priest in the early 1970s. The Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph paid for counseling of one accuser's family and bought another accuser a pickup; the bishop was evaluated at a treatment center, got therapy for alcohol abuse and returned to duty. The diocese has said there was no indication that he was dangerous. Since the allegations became public in April, a third accuser has come forward and said he was abused as a boy in Wyoming. Police there are investigating. Bishop Hart has denied wrongdoing.

Germany - Franziskus Eisenbach, Diocese of Mainz, 58. Although denying charges, he was accused by a woman of sexual abuse and injuring her during an exorcism. (Resigned mid-April 2002)

Atlanta, GA - Archbishop Eugene Marino, Atlanta, Ga. He was involved in scandal involving a young woman, who said the "relationship" began by rape. (Resigned 1990)

Santa Rosa, Calif. – Bishop G. Patrick Ziemann resigned in 1999 after admitting a sexual relationship with a priest he supervised. The priest said he was coerced into sex after the bishop learned he had stolen parish funds. Bishop Ziemann, who has returned to ministry in Arizona, said their relationship was consensual.

Canada - Bishop Hubert O'Connor. He was accused and later convicted of molesting teens at boarding schools. (Resigned 1992)

Palm Beach, Fla. – Bishop J. Keith Symons quit in 1998 after admitting that he abused five boys while a priest in various Florida parishes many years earlier. He has returned to ministry in Michigan.

Santa Fe, N.M. – Archbishop Robert Sanchez resigned in 1993 after admitting affairs with young women in the 1980s and 1970s. His archdiocese has settled more than 100 lawsuits alleging that he ignored complaints about numerous pedophile priests who had been in treatment at a nearby facility and were assigned to parishes within his Archdiocse as part of their "rehabilitation" during this time.

Ireland- Bishop Eamonn Casey. He fathered a child and used church funds to pay off the mother. (Resigned 1992)

Chicago, Ill. - Cardinal Joseph Bernadin (deceased) faced abuse allegations in 1993 from Stephen Cook (deceased), a former seminarian who also claimed that Bernadin maintained a lengthy intimate relationship with him. Bernadin denied the charges. Cook later withdrew his charges stating he could no longer trust his memory. Church officials denied any settlement was paid to the former seminarian but multiple sources close to Cook maintain that he was paid in excess of one million dollars. Cook later died of Aids. Prior to their deaths Cook and Bernadin accomplished a private reconcilliation after which Bernadin celebrated Mass for Cook & his partner in the Cardinal's private residence. Independent investigations into those allegations and matters pertaining to them continue.

The string of accusations by grown women against various rabbis, that said rabbis have used their position to manipulate them into having sex with them, marks a sad trend in the politics of sexuality, as well as the politics of Jewish egalitarianism.

There should be legitimate cases in which women may turn to the law against abusive men of authority. Employers are not permitted to demand sexual favors, or even to use sexual language, under penalty of law. And minors are not even permitted the right to concede to sexual advances. Statutory rape is rape is rape.

But when a grown woman depicts a rabbi's religious position as an argument to absolve her of responsibility for having adulterous sex, it infantilizes her, and sets back the cause of women's egalitarian role in religious society. If women are so helpless that an authoritative gaze from a clergyman, or even concerted pressure, even nasty, abusive pressure, can cause them to succumb and have sex with him, we must conclude that it's too soon to permit women to have regular intercourse (no pun intended) in an open and unrestrictive fashion. We must shoo all our women into the house and bind them in chastity belts, because they're childlike and unable to withstand temptation.

A society of victims, unable to accept responsibility for their messes, is an infantilized society, one incapable of fending for itself spiritually and otherwise. We mustn't give in to the temptation of blaming our troubles on others. It is something only children do. Indeed, children and feeble minded people are entitled to be treated as potential victims. Grownups must account for their failures, even in the bedroom.

Jane (who had a relationship with rabbi Worch) replies (and I've edited down her letter for various temporary reasons):

Yanover's letter sounds all well and good. However, there is still no accounting for those who are in rabbinical positions primarily for the ego-gratification of power-over-others, using their mentoring and supposed 'spiritual' authority as tools of seduction. Has he no concern about those who pervert and abuse Judaism in this manner?

Yanover wants to talk about the so-called 'infantalizing' of women, that's a crock. The minute all the women who've been abused by these cretins...speak up is the minute they stop being infantalized. For more on being infantalized, in fact, he should ask...about... 'Age-Play'.

Of course Yanovers' going to have a "different perspective" on "these issues", when one of his main goals is to get you to remove your Profile page on his friend!

Here's a suggestion for digging a bit deeper as a journalist. When those supporters tell you things like "he's the only rabbi who really understood them", or "the relationship was healing" or "therapeutic" ---dig deeper.

Ask exactly what they mean, why, etc. If you dig deep enough, you'll eventually end up getting similar stories that we who came forward to complain have told--except with a different spin, of course, if they are still currently involved.

Those of us who've come out on the other side, when we hear things like that, the alarm bells go off. It's what we, too, once thought and felt. But manipulation can be a fine art, and in the hands of certain narcissistic craftsmen, even the best of people can be duped for long periods of time.

But do try to get more of his supporters to speak up. And be sure to question/ask them all about the BDSM Kabbala (yes it exists, two women I know have it although I've never seen it), ask them how their experiences of "timed orgasms" from his "voice-control" fits in with his teachings on Judaism, 'k?

Yori Yanover responds:

Luke,

It's disturbing to argue with an anonymous person, "Jane," while I'm presenting a full name, and my address and phone number are in the White Pages. Why would she fear exposure by having her identity revealed to me? What is the implication about who I am, that this Jane fears criticizing my letter using her full name? What is the implication regarding the veracity and acceptability of her own views when she's not there for an open discussion, but prefers to hide behind a pseudonym? What is the implication when this blog gives equal credence to both views, when one comes from a real man and the other from what could very well be a fictional woman?

"Jane" suggests that it's a bad thing that rabbis "pervert and abuse Judaism" by "using their mentoring and supposed 'spiritual' authority as tools of seduction." I couldn't agree more. But why does that absolve all who sleep with them of personal responsibility? Or, as generations of mothers used to say, "If he told you to jump off the Empire State Building you'd also do it?" Give me a break, barring physical or other violent enforcement, people, men and women, tend to sleep with those they want to sleep with. You slept with your louse of a rabbi it's your fault, unless you are a child or a moron (legally).

"The minute all the women who've been abused by these cretins...speak up is the minute they stop being infantilized," says "Jane." Actually, no, that's when they realize how badly they've messed up and are looking for a way to salvage the life they've ruined by pinning the blame on the guy they just did it with. It's the post-coital cry of Rape, and it don't wash.

And what am I to make of the assertion that "Of course Yanover's going to have a 'different perspective' on 'these issues,' when one of his main goals is to get you to remove your Profile page on his friend!"? Is this a grownup kind of discourse? Is this a rebuttal to anything I wrote, or an attempt to smear me by talking about my supposed intentions rather than my expressed opinion? This "Jane" could just as easily have written, "Of course Yanover has this perspective, because he's overweight, owes money at the grocery store and moonlights as a bouncer at Studio 54," with identical relevance to the discussion at hand.

The only credible proposal "Jane" puts forth is that charismatic manipulation is tantamount to an assault, which would absolve the victim of responsibility for adultery. But what she fails to provide is a single book of laws, Jewish, secular, Muslim, anything, which backs this assertion. She's plain wrong, and her exclamation that those manipulative, charismatic rabbis are perverting Judaism, pales before the kind of damage she and the victim movement is doing to the Jewish idea of responsibility, which is essential to the very Jewish idea of T'shuva. This is why on Yom Kippur we clap on our own chests and not on the chest of the charismatic rabbi standing next to us.

There's no free lunch, "Jane," no matter how many times you scream that it's the rabbi who made you eat.

Yanover needs to wake up to the fact that when such claims are made repeatedly by NUMEROUS former partners it becomes a clear pattern that can only be dismissed by those who refuse to face facts. His attempts to diminish ALL women as being infantile through this argument simply shows him as being the same sort of mysoginist jerk as his friend and mentor Mr. Worch.

You might want to ask Yanover what exactly he "gets" out of supporting his "rebbe". Does Worch share all his sexual exploits with women 'round the world with him? Does Yanover get off on how Worch has honed his manipulative skills over the years?

Please inform Mr. Yanover that all the various women who have stepped forward to speak out on those who pervert their positions of power---including his friend-----are by no means part of the 'victim movement', but of the 'exposing these damaging frauds' movement. Yes, each individual woman was responsible when they stepped into these relationships-----and each took equal responsibility when they walked out of them. They're hardly victims. The true *victims* are the ones who so foolishly continue to support these charlatans, especially when they are "well aware of their failures as human beings" over the years.

Please inform him we do take consideration of the Jewish idea of responsibility----the responsibility to inform and warn others that there's a fraud in their midst who has no business whatsoever passing themselves off as any kind of 'spiritual' teacher.

quite possibly, they have perpetrated one of the worst libels in modern Jewish history.

alternatively, if they are to be believed, they are quite willing adultresses.

leaving the issue of RMT aside, let us turn our attention to these women and the bizarre manner in which certain groups "protect" their identities as some sort of "victim". By their claims, they were all willing adultresses, both by civil definition and certainly halacha. How did so many ostensibly orthodox women become co-opted into supporting such basic violations of marital fidelity --given your acceptance of their claims without question. You cannot have it both ways, and the article posted at Luke Ford cuts to the core of the issue.

Shame on all of the women who defend wanton lust and adultery over halacha and marital fidelity, then wrap themselves in self-righteous frumkeit.

you keep trying to combine willing adult adultresses with minor children. There is no comparison at all to Lanner, Weinberg or the other cases. These were adult women who knew exactly what they were doing, and are responsible for their actions under law and halacha. Run the rabbi out of town for having extramarital affairs if proven -- no one has a problem with that.

Irrespective, however, these women are REQUIRED to be put in cherem as willing adultresses, divorced at once and denied custody of their children. No choice, unless you are willing to state that your orthodoxy is only present for ritual convenience when it conforms to American cultural standards. Based upon what all of you CLAIM these women admit to, how can any of you protect them for a second? They are not 15 years old, they are not victims of any kind --they are brazen adultresses, who cuckolded their hsubands in extramarital affrairs. Who cares if it was with the rabbi or the richest guy in town -- in dealing with THE ADULTRESSES, there is no relevance in any of these defenses.

Run them out of town tonight! IN cherem forever, evil women who desrtoy the basis of the Jewish household! Where are the Bnos Yisrael to openly defend the sanctity of the marriage and household, and deal according to all Halacha with the WILLING ADULTRESSES?

I was SO pleased to see the letter from behind the mechitza, finally breaking open the dam of silence for all of us here in the shul.

I have raised my daughters to be proper frum girls, and they are not stupid at all. That means making certain they understand that if they ever end up on all fours on the carpet of a girlfriend's home (much less the Rebbetzin) with her husband, even once would be 10,000 times too many to claim a lack of judgment. Now you expect me to look these girls in the eye and tell them that married women who were doing it, by their own word, over two years time were "victims"? How dare you try to force us to repeat such drivel and nonsense to our daughters. The Cause does not justify denying the truth, and you fool no one.

I wish the supporters of these women would help a simply Monsey mother with the math: how many times, exactly, need a "frum" married women gets down on all fours for a married man before she is no longer a "victim" but willing participant -- once, ten times? twenty times? please give me a benchmark for use with my girls.

When my eldest comes home from her new apartment on the Upper West Side and tells me that she has been having an affair with one of the senior partners in her Wall Street bank, shall I console her as a "victim" of his authority, because he said he loved her and would leave his wife for her, or smack her across the face? And that presumes she has not yet taken her own matrimony vows under the chuppa! Imagine of this is after years of marriage!

And when I come home early one day next year to find one of these "victims" dancing the horizontal momba with my husband in my bedroom, do I accept her explanation that "life has been particularly tough of late, and she was mesmerized by my husband's authority (as in more wealth and power than her husband) and was a helpless victim that could not help herself? Have you declared open season on my husband and marriage next?

The comment about how we compartmentalize frumkeit and what we see on Sex and the City was perfect.

How DARE you try to co-opt us into blindly and silently supporting your nonsensical support of these women as victims! The are homewreckers and nymphomaniacs! It feels so good to finally be able to say that publicly and openly!

The person JOFA most needs to ask mechila this year, however, will be some poor 11 year old girl molested next year by a teacher or Rabbi she trusted, who has no popular support because of the STUPIDITY of trying to equate her victimhood and suffering with the fallootin' tootin' of a bunch of married women who all knew better but understood that no matter what, they could claim a free pass from any responsiblity to their marriage vows -- or mine!

The issue of sexual contact between clergy and congregants is complex. Whenever a minister is exposed for such behavior the aftermath is traumatic for everyone involved. Churches feel betrayed, victims/survivors are marginalized and misunderstood and the families of all involved suffer greatly. This article is intended as an informational and educational forum to increase understanding about sexual contact between clergy and congregants.

Oftentimes sexual contact between clergy and congregants is dismissed as an "affair" between "consenting adults". This is a misnomer for several reasons. First, the relationship between a clergy person and his/her congregants is professional in nature. That means that clergy have a responsibility to use the special knowledge, skills and gifts of their call for the benefit of those they serve namely their congregants. It also means that clergy have a responsibility to establish healthy professional relationships. Because clergy carry moral and spiritual authority, as well as professional power it is ALWAYS their responsibility to maintain an appropriate professional boundary.

In practical terms this translates into clergy not pursuing or initiating sexual relationships with congregants (regardless of marital status of either party) and not responding to the sexual advances of congregants who may be interested in a relationship with their pastor. It also means that clergy will not engage in sexualized behavior with congregants. Sexualized behavior includes jokes, inappropriate touching, pornography, flirting, inappropriate gift giving, etc.

Since the ministerial relationship is professional in nature, it is inappropriate to call a sexual encounter an affair. Affair is a term used to describe a sexual liaison between peers, or equals. In addition, the term affair focuses attention on the sexual nature of the behavior rather than the professional violation. It also places equal responsibility for the behavior on the congregant. Since clergy have a responsibility to set and maintain appropriate boundaries, those who are violated by clergy's inappropriate sexual behavior are not to be blamed even if they initiated the contact.

This is a difficult concept for many people to grasp. We want to blame the congregant (usually but not always a woman) for the sexually inappropriate behavior of the minister (usually but not always a man). As tempting as this may be, it is wrong because it is always the responsibility of the minister to maintain the integrity of the ministerial relationship. The temptation to blame the congregant is also a reflection of the difficulty people have believing that a person who carries moral and spiritual authority, who is respected and trusted, can also be guilty of misusing the power and authority of the office. That denial and confusion causes tremendous damage to victims who need understanding and support as well as to churches that need clear, ethical, theological and faith based intervention to understand their betrayal. Blaming the congregant also means a failure to call the abusing pastor to genuine accountability. The focus needs to remain on the violation of the ministerial relationship.

The term "consenting adults" also reflects a misunderstanding of sexual behavior between clergy and congregants. It is assumed that because two people are adults that there is consent. In reality, consent is far more complex. In order for two people to give authentic consent to sexual activity there must be equal power. Clergy have more power because of the moral and spiritual authority of the office of pastor. In addition, education, community respect and public image add to the imbalance of power between a clergy person and a congregant. Finally clergy may have the additional power of psychological resources, especially when a congregant seeks pastoral care in the midst of personal or spiritual crisis, life change, illness or death of a loved one. This precludes the possibility of meaningful consent between a congregant and their pastor.

In our work with survivors of clergy abuse we often ask the question, "Would this have happened if he/she was your neighbor and not your pastor." Overwhelmingly the answer is "no". The witness of survivors underscores the truth that the clergy role carries with it a power and authority that make meaningful consent impossible.

When speaking of sexual contact between clergy and congregants, the term professional misconduct or sexual exploitation is more accurate. It keeps the emphasis on the professional relationship and the exploitative nature of sexual behavior rather than placing blame on the victim/survivor. "An affair between consenting adults" is never an appropriate term to use when describing sexual contact between a minister and congregant. Accurate naming of the behavior is an important step to reshaping our thinking about this troubling reality in the church, how we name it reveals our belief about it. Holding clergy accountable with compassion and purpose and providing healing resources to churches and survivors is dependent on an accurate starting point. Only when we name the behavior accurately can we hope to have a healing outcome for all involved.